If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(Mother Jones)   During the recession, "corporate profits captured 88% of the growth in real national income while aggregate wages and salaries accounted for only slightly more than 1%"   (motherjones.com) divider line 280
    More: Sick, wages and salaries, Great Recession, total relation, Northeastern University, recession  
•       •       •

4956 clicks; posted to Main » on 01 Jul 2011 at 9:34 AM (3 years ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



280 Comments   (+0 »)
   

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | » | Last | Show all
 
2011-07-01 10:32:36 AM
Iwan Dobski: SEVEN if there are a hundred people in the room, seven are terrified of tax hikes on those making over 250k

Yeah. TWO of them actually make $250K

The other FIVE are Tea Party idiots making $25K
 
2011-07-01 10:34:01 AM
Reason Mother Jones used to be such a good magazine. Now it is...
 
2011-07-01 10:35:57 AM
On a macro-economic picture, wealth is only created through increases in productivity. Everything else is just shuffling existing wealth around. So if productivity stays stagnant, you can redistribute wealth to lower classes through excessive taxes or redistribute it up the chain through what is happening now.

Basically for the rich to get richer, the middle class has to get farked.

Now I'm not in any way suggesting that we go overboard the other direction. Capitalism depends on rewarding those who produce, innovate, work hard, and take risks. But it's clear to me right now that those on the upper end of the scale are doing quite well while the rest of us are getting screwed.

In other words, I had to take a few percent pay cut and was told to be happy I have a job, but any suggestion that those on the upper end of the scale get taxed a few percent more, most of the middle class are ready to riot on behalf of them.

That I don't get.

Everyone should share a little pain until we get out of this mess, including those at the top.
 
2011-07-01 10:37:24 AM
Eat the Rich. Toast with your choice of cocktail (Molotov).

Seriously, with almost 10% unemployment there are a lot of people with nothing to loose, and a guarantee of three square meals, a roof and a bed. It's going to be entertaining for the next few years. Even more so if the Republicans win.
 
2011-07-01 10:37:56 AM

Pollexabator: vpb: You believe that "trickle down" economics is going to work after 30 years of failure and it's other people who are easy to manipulate?

I've discovered that it's really no use trying to discuss this situation with those who buy these Reaganomics arguments. This isn't about math, it's an ideological discussion to them. It's almost theology.


So you believe in trickle up economics then. Why is it in this country that being poor is considered noble and above reproach but being rich is evil and reviled?

Oh I remember now that is what left wing politicians want so they make sure that is what is taught by government school union teachers.


It is so much easier to keep people control people when they are at the mercy of government handouts.
 
2011-07-01 10:38:12 AM

MycroftHolmes: I guess I am curious as to what people think is going on. Profits are either being dividended out to shareholders, held on the balance sheet as cash reserves to protect operations against a double dip recession, or reinvested in capital expenditures. If it was being salaried out to execs, it would show up in the either column.


The bulk of executive compensation for many companies is in the form of stock bonuses, not as salary.

/They're also taxed at capital gains rates for more budget deficit goodness.
 
2011-07-01 10:40:27 AM

chiefsfaninkc: King Something: chiefsfaninkc: King Something: chiefsfaninkc: Splinshints: GORDON: And regular people who own stock in those companies get a piece of those profits. Amazing.

Oh, jesus christ, not this shiat again.

I'll repeat this again, slowly and loudly, because apparently all the "smart" people who trade stocks are complete farking idiots and really need even simple points driven heavily into their thick skulls: people. should. not. have. to. have. a. second. job. trading. stocks. to. make. a. decent. living.

Oh Farking Shiat not this stupidity again. Please define a "Decent Living".

I dunno, maybe not needing to work two jobs or play the stock market after work in order to get the bills paid and put food on the table?

Sounds like a issues of skill set and not an issue of economics to me.

Increasing costs of living and stagnant wages are an issue of skill set?

Wages are not stagnant if you have the correct skill set.


If by "skill set" you mean "job that pays a 6-figure salary instead of an hourly wage," then you're absolutely right. Stagnant wages also aren't a problem for most of the people whose day job is trading stocks.

But for people who can't afford to top off their gas tank every time they go to the gas station? People who buy the store brand when they do groceries instead of the national brand so that they have a few extra dollars with which to pay their utility bills? People who work two jobs so they can pay their bills? Stagnant wages are a problem for those people.

And before you say "they should get a better-paying job" or "it's their own fault for lack of a proper skill set," please pay attention to the fact that almost nobody is hiring and that that's the reason people with the bachelor's degrees necessary for the six-figure salary careers are instead busing tables for minimum wage plus tips.
 
2011-07-01 10:42:08 AM

Splinshints: GORDON: And regular people who own stock in those companies get a piece of those profits. Amazing.

Oh, jesus christ, not this shiat again.

I'll repeat this again, slowly and loudly, because apparently all the "smart" people who trade stocks are complete farking idiots and really need even simple points driven heavily into their thick skulls: people. should. not. have. to. have. a. second. job. trading. stocks. to. make. a. decent. living.

It's no more fair to demand that a construction worker spend hours every night pouring over stock data to make a living than it is to demand a trader don a hardhat every night and go do real work for a change building something. If the economy demands constant participation in the stock market for the majority of workers to be able to make a fair living, then the economy is broken.

Shifting papers around a desk and bits around a computer network is not work. It is not productive. Nothing of value comes from it. You cannot sustain an economy doing it, so you cannot tell the people who actually do the work that generate your bits of paper and data to join you in your paper-shuffling as a "fix" to their income problems and expect anything other than disaster.


So, if it's WWII and you're operating the targeting computer on the USS Iowa, you're not doing any real work. It's the guys who are packing the barrel with black powder and loading and firing the shells who are doing the real work. Where the shells end up is neither important nor productive. One place is as good as another. I think I have it now, thanks.
 
2011-07-01 10:42:21 AM

vpb: zilla1126: People just don't have any critical thinking skills anymore - listen idiots:



You believe that "trickle down" economics is going to work after 30 years of failure and it's other people who are easy to manipulate?


Inferring that we have been full speed ahead with trickle down economics for thirty years and blaming our current situation on that is like a meth head feeling sick and wasted and blaming that on the fact that he took a vitamin once every few months over the last few years.

Trickle down is a vitamin; the congress spending money like a meteor is heading toward the planet is the meth.

Don't blame conservative policies for any of this shiat - *conservatives* (note that I did not say republicans) have had very little ability to significantly direct policy over the last 40 years.

What little conservative action that has been taken during that period has been proportional to the use of a three foot rudder on the Queen Mary trying to turn away from Niagara Falls.

So long as the sorry state of the electorate remains, we will continue to cycle between marxists and liberal republicans for President - both of which will have a tiny rudder with which to try to steer the Queen Mary (the Congress).
 
2011-07-01 10:42:50 AM

MrSteve007: I think it's cute that some people defend this by saying 'bu bubut you can own the stock too!'

Yep, because corporations issue all of their shares as common stock . . .

The common stock, and the share of profit they receive is frequently just a fraction of the total stock of the company, while the rest resides as preferred stock with a handful of investors & owners. Meaning a majority of the profit go to just a few.

/gets issued 2% preferred stock in a corporation this month.
//Zero shares are publically held.


Yep. My company is privately held. Just as Koch, Cargill, Chrysler, Bechtel, Mars. Almost $2 trillion in US revenues that you can never own stock in.

Another fun fact. The average time a share is held is 22 seconds. Do you really think the average person owns stocks?
 
2011-07-01 10:42:57 AM

weave: On a macro-economic picture, wealth is only created through increases in productivity. Everything else is just shuffling existing wealth around.



That is incorrect. Wealth is created. Are you telling me that 1,000 years ago multi-trillions of dollars worth of wealth existed?

The creation of wealth is the basis for Capitalism. Converting raw materials into more valuable product.


/Also feel the need to point out that the only way to truly elevate your own position is by elevating the position of those around you. Not by knocking everyone else down.
 
2011-07-01 10:43:11 AM

Rich Cream: Are you saying that if the taxes on Corp A were raised they wouldn't pass that cost onto their customers?


I am saying that corporations are not pass thru entities like limited liability companies.

And yes, I guess I am also saying that the idea of corporations simply passing on any tax burden to consumers is simplistic thinking that doesn't reflect the realities of the business world. They may have other ways to get around paying taxes, but someone saying that corporations never pay taxes because they can just shift the cost to consumers doesn't know what he's talking about.
 
2011-07-01 10:44:51 AM
The U.S is not really a capitalist system, it's corporate. Why capitalists continue to defend our current system is beyond me.


When one company is so huge that when it go's down it takes others with it, that's not the tenets of capitalism.
 
2011-07-01 10:45:46 AM

cirby: The problem isn't that corporations are making money - they always do that. It's that they're holding on to it, or paying it out as profits to their shareholders instead of using it for reinvestment in the business. Most of the big businesses are NOT going to be hiring for the near future, because they're worried about how Obamacare and the other huge spending sprees from the last couple of years will affect the cost of those hires over the next decade or so.

Why hire someone for $40,000 a year (or whatever) for a job, when there's a good chance that's going to really cost the equivalent of a $50,000 a year job due to mandatory insurance requirements? Especially since a large part of the government is insisting on raising taxes by a huge amount on top of that? If you hire someone based on the idea that their salary is going to be $40,000 (which allows you to make a profit at that cost), but they really cost the business $60,000, you're going to lose money on each new hire. Therefore, no new hiring.

(Note that a $40,000 a year job already costs a lot more than that - closer to double in many cases, with payroll taxes, liability insurance, legal costs, and so on. One of the rules of thumb about hiring has always been "if you pay someone a dollar, you need to take in at least two dollars of business to cover that cost and make a profit.")


That's a great reason why single-payer health coverage would be good for business. Especially small business.

Also, money paid out in wages is money that gets put directly back into the economy, not hoarded.
 
2011-07-01 10:45:47 AM
chiefsfaninkc
So you believe in trickle up economics then. Why is it in this country that being poor is considered noble and above reproach but being rich is evil and reviled?

Oh I remember now that is what left wing politicians want so they make sure that is what is taught by government school union teachers.


It is so much easier to keep people control people when they are at the mercy of government handouts.


Man, I would LOVE to see what's on your bookshelf. That is, if you read.
 
2011-07-01 10:45:53 AM

cirby: Do you even have a clue as to what a 401K is?


Sure.

The millions of workers who don't have any access to one? I don't know, but it doesn't matter because they don't have access to them even if they do know what they are.

Regular folks don't usually need to "trade stocks for a living," because they put their money into the company they work for

[citation needed]

If that's true, why are so many people barreling down on their retirement with inadequate savings to actually retire? Because even if they do own stock (a point we'll get to in a moment), they don't enough, or invest it with enough insight, to make any substantial money on it and it doesn't impact their wealth significantly (or impacts it negatively).

"normal" stock holders

I guess we need to define normal. Would you say it's the 10% that controls nearly all non-real-estate wealth in the country or the remaining 90% that has, as its primary source of wealth, a home?

Here's some charts for ya, skippy. Scroll down to figure 2 in particular:

Who Rules America: Wealth, Income, and Power

Not a whole lot of mutual funds or stocks in that bottom 90%, huh? In fact, looking at 2b, it seems pretty reasonable to conclude that dying is actually the most economically beneficial thing 90% of us will ever do.

most of the investors in stock in the US are regular people who "invest" through their retirement plans

You're ignoring all the people who don't own stocks at all. According to my link (5b on it, specifically) more than half of all households in the U.S. in 2007 owned no stocks at all, and that was before people were losing their asses in the recession. I don't know what the actual investor breakdown is (although that seems to go in favor of my argument too since less than a third of households have even a paltry $10k worth of stocks), but my point isn't affected by that since it would appear more than half the people in this country aren't investors anyway.

you never once looked at your finances once you got hired, you're almost certainly a stockholder

Yea, well.... except apparently not.
 
2011-07-01 10:45:57 AM

gilgigamesh: Rich Cream: Are you saying that if the taxes on Corp A were raised they wouldn't pass that cost onto their customers?

I am saying that corporations are not pass thru entities like limited liability companies.

And yes, I guess I am also saying that the idea of corporations simply passing on any tax burden to consumers is simplistic thinking that doesn't reflect the realities of the business world. They may have other ways to get around paying taxes, but someone saying that corporations never pay taxes because they can just shift the cost to consumers doesn't know what he's talking about.


Remind me to never go into business with you because if you are not going to pass through taxes to consumers your business will be gone in a year.
 
2011-07-01 10:46:11 AM

zilla1126: vpb: zilla1126: People just don't have any critical thinking skills anymore - listen idiots:



You believe that "trickle down" economics is going to work after 30 years of failure and it's other people who are easy to manipulate?

Inferring that we have been full speed ahead with trickle down economics for thirty years and blaming our current situation on that is like a meth head feeling sick and wasted and blaming that on the fact that he took a vitamin once every few months over the last few years.

Trickle down is a vitamin; the congress spending money like a meteor is heading toward the planet is the meth.

Don't blame conservative policies for any of this shiat - *conservatives* (note that I did not say republicans) have had very little ability to significantly direct policy over the last 40 years.

What little conservative action that has been taken during that period has been proportional to the use of a three foot rudder on the Queen Mary trying to turn away from Niagara Falls.

So long as the sorry state of the electorate remains, we will continue to cycle between marxists and liberal republicans for President - both of which will have a tiny rudder with which to try to steer the Queen Mary (the Congress).


Also, I understand there is actually no true scotsman.
 
2011-07-01 10:48:26 AM
gilgigamesh:
Mmm... I love it when irony comes with a heaping helping side order of smug ignorance. Delicious

You really don't know, do you?

Let's try again, then.

When you raise taxes on corporations, they don't just pay that money and leave everything else as it is. They increase their prices to their customers. Those customers then raise THEIR prices, until the final price increase reaches the consumer.

Example: The US government decides to raise all corporate taxes by a flat 2% - so 2% of their final profits go straight to the government, with no exemptions. Great, right? They can "pay their fair share." Except that their immediate response is to raise the prices on their products by enough to make up for that difference. Which means that all products made by corporations just went up by 2% or more in price. Which means you get a quick dollop of an extra 2+% inflation for that year, with prices stuck at that higher level. Since the big corporations raised their prices, their distributors do the same, and so forth, until that local store where you buy your loaf of bread changes all of the prices on their shelves to make up for the increased costs.

...and who pays for that increase at the consumer level? You do, along with everyone else - not "a corporation." Corporations are just legal constructs to help people manage money.

This doesn't even touch the problems with costs of goods from other countries (a mid-level company would have a solid 2% price advantage over a US company), and snowball effects that cause the obvious 2% to end up being 4% or 5% by the time it gets to you (overhead, tax lawyers, and the normal tendency to add a little bit on top of new costs "just in case").
 
2011-07-01 10:48:42 AM

chiefsfaninkc: So you believe in trickle up economics then. Why is it in this country that being poor is considered noble and above reproach but being rich is evil and reviled?


I love how there are only two choices in the conservative world.

Either you're a hard working rich person, or you're a lazy poor person.

In this world there is no middle class, and there are no overpaid executives.

The middle class works hard everyday, pay most of the taxes, get none of the benefits.

They have a couple thousand in investments and hope to someday retire on them.

They will never be allowed to move up, they won't allow themselves to move down.

They are getting screwed from both ends and are told to like it, otherwise their jobs will be outsourced or their social safety net will be taken away.

They got a reasonable mortgage, and are now stuck in houses that aren't worth the debt.

They pay their student loans, and their credit cards, and their auto loans and got no bail out.

Their wages go down and are told that unions are stealing from them, while their boss gets a raise for firing everyone else in the department.

Yep. Those lazy poor and those exploited rich. It's such a simple world to the conservative mind.
 
2011-07-01 10:48:58 AM

King Something: people with the bachelor's degrees necessary for the six-figure salary careers are instead busing tables for minimum wage plus tips.


What the Hell kind of job routinely pays six-figure salaries and only requires a bachelor's degree?
 
2011-07-01 10:48:59 AM
Because corporations take those profits and put them in a big room in the form of cash and the execs take turns sitting on the pile rubbing their hands together shouting "BWAHAHAAHAHAAAAA!"

1) You want jobs, give it to businesses that create them

2) Tying top exec pay to stock price/balance sheet performance is asinine. Reform this and much of this populist/revolution BS subsides.
 
2011-07-01 10:49:33 AM

SuperTramp: chiefsfaninkc
So you believe in trickle up economics then. Why is it in this country that being poor is considered noble and above reproach but being rich is evil and reviled?

Oh I remember now that is what left wing politicians want so they make sure that is what is taught by government school union teachers.


It is so much easier to keep people control people when they are at the mercy of government handouts.

Man, I would LOVE to see what's on your bookshelf. That is, if you read.


I read a lot of things but hell all you have to do is read a couple of Fark threads on the political tab or talk to a typical teenager in government school to realize that what I said is true.
 
2011-07-01 10:49:55 AM

chiefsfaninkc: gilgigamesh: Rich Cream: Are you saying that if the taxes on Corp A were raised they wouldn't pass that cost onto their customers?

I am saying that corporations are not pass thru entities like limited liability companies.

And yes, I guess I am also saying that the idea of corporations simply passing on any tax burden to consumers is simplistic thinking that doesn't reflect the realities of the business world. They may have other ways to get around paying taxes, but someone saying that corporations never pay taxes because they can just shift the cost to consumers doesn't know what he's talking about.

Remind me to never go into business with you because if you are not going to pass through taxes to consumers your business will be gone in a year.


Don't worry about that. I will just form a limited liability company to compete with your corporation in the same business. Since you'll be charging half again what I am charging just to cover your tax burden, I will drive you out of business a lot quicker than one year.
 
2011-07-01 10:50:29 AM

Splinshints: GORDON: And regular people who own stock in those companies get a piece of those profits. Amazing.

Oh, jesus christ, not this shiat again.

I'll repeat this again, slowly and loudly, because apparently all the "smart" people who trade stocks are complete farking idiots and really need even simple points driven heavily into their thick skulls: people. should. not. have. to. have. a. second. job. trading. stocks. to. make. a. decent. living.

It's no more fair to demand that a construction worker spend hours every night pouring over stock data to make a living than it is to demand a trader don a hardhat every night and go do real work for a change building something. If the economy demands constant participation in the stock market for the majority of workers to be able to make a fair living, then the economy is broken.

Shifting papers around a desk and bits around a computer network is not work. It is not productive. Nothing of value comes from it. You cannot sustain an economy doing it, so you cannot tell the people who actually do the work that generate your bits of paper and data to join you in your paper-shuffling as a "fix" to their income problems and expect anything other than disaster.


www.keepposted.com
 
2011-07-01 10:50:49 AM
Is it ok if I also biatch a little about a service based economy? You know, the one where I paint that guy's house and he then performs a service for me and each time we pay each other the gov't takes a slice off the top and therefore since we aren't creating wealth (a capitalistic economy) we can't grow our wealth? If anything each time we interact we lose money. And people are arguing why things are bad economically. Ridiculous.
 
2011-07-01 10:51:38 AM

gilgigamesh: chiefsfaninkc: gilgigamesh: Rich Cream: Are you saying that if the taxes on Corp A were raised they wouldn't pass that cost onto their customers?

I am saying that corporations are not pass thru entities like limited liability companies.

And yes, I guess I am also saying that the idea of corporations simply passing on any tax burden to consumers is simplistic thinking that doesn't reflect the realities of the business world. They may have other ways to get around paying taxes, but someone saying that corporations never pay taxes because they can just shift the cost to consumers doesn't know what he's talking about.

Remind me to never go into business with you because if you are not going to pass through taxes to consumers your business will be gone in a year.

Don't worry about that. I will just form a limited liability company to compete with your corporation in the same business. Since you'll be charging half again what I am charging just to cover your tax burden, I will drive you out of business a lot quicker than one year.


Yea thats why everyone is always screaming about Walmart running the Mom & Pop shop out of business.
 
2011-07-01 10:54:35 AM
Apparently the Obvious tag was sickened by this story.
 
2011-07-01 10:54:55 AM

chiefsfaninkc: gilgigamesh: chiefsfaninkc: gilgigamesh: Rich Cream: Are you saying that if the taxes on Corp A were raised they wouldn't pass that cost onto their customers?

I am saying that corporations are not pass thru entities like limited liability companies.

And yes, I guess I am also saying that the idea of corporations simply passing on any tax burden to consumers is simplistic thinking that doesn't reflect the realities of the business world. They may have other ways to get around paying taxes, but someone saying that corporations never pay taxes because they can just shift the cost to consumers doesn't know what he's talking about.

Remind me to never go into business with you because if you are not going to pass through taxes to consumers your business will be gone in a year.

Don't worry about that. I will just form a limited liability company to compete with your corporation in the same business. Since you'll be charging half again what I am charging just to cover your tax burden, I will drive you out of business a lot quicker than one year.

Yea thats why everyone is always screaming about Walmart running the Mom & Pop shop out of business.


3.bp.blogspot.com
 
2011-07-01 10:55:30 AM

LouDobbsAwaaaay: King Something: people with the bachelor's degrees necessary for the six-figure salary careers are instead busing tables for minimum wage plus tips.

What the Hell kind of job routinely pays six-figure salaries and only requires a bachelor's degree?


Hell if I know, I was just trying to make a point - namely, that people with bachelor's degrees should be able to get better-paying jobs than "minimum wage waiter at a small restaurant" and would be able to get such a job if there was anyone hiring.
 
2011-07-01 10:56:56 AM

Rich Cream: Is it ok if I also biatch a little about a service based economy? You know, the one where I paint that guy's house and he then performs a service for me and each time we pay each other the gov't takes a slice off the top and therefore since we aren't creating wealth (a capitalistic economy) we can't grow our wealth? If anything each time we interact we lose money. And people are arguing why things are bad economically. Ridiculous.


This is why having more imports than exports is bad. We need to produce something that goes to other countries. What I don't understand is why companies aren't sending our workers to other nations. Next time there is a disaster we charge a nation for our labor. We rebuild Haiti (earthquake, still not rebuilt) Japan, Central and South America. They send those wages back here.

Less supply of labor here drives up wages, More capital from other nations coming here.

Let the EU donate funds, let those funds come to us.
 
2011-07-01 10:58:18 AM

gilgigamesh: chiefsfaninkc: gilgigamesh: chiefsfaninkc: gilgigamesh: Rich Cream: Are you saying that if the taxes on Corp A were raised they wouldn't pass that cost onto their customers?

I am saying that corporations are not pass thru entities like limited liability companies.

And yes, I guess I am also saying that the idea of corporations simply passing on any tax burden to consumers is simplistic thinking that doesn't reflect the realities of the business world. They may have other ways to get around paying taxes, but someone saying that corporations never pay taxes because they can just shift the cost to consumers doesn't know what he's talking about.

Remind me to never go into business with you because if you are not going to pass through taxes to consumers your business will be gone in a year.

Don't worry about that. I will just form a limited liability company to compete with your corporation in the same business. Since you'll be charging half again what I am charging just to cover your tax burden, I will drive you out of business a lot quicker than one year.

Yea thats why everyone is always screaming about Walmart running the Mom & Pop shop out of business.

[3.bp.blogspot.com image 256x256]


You can't miss a flawed point. Just laugh at it
 
2011-07-01 10:58:40 AM

CornerPocket: So, if it's WWII and you're operating the targeting computer on the USS Iowa, you're not doing any real work.


If you engage your brain and try really hard you'll get the point. I have faith in you. I believe in your ability to discern, on your own, the material difference between a functional support role in business and industry (or, in your example, the military) and sitting at a desk pushing bits of money around board.

When you stop pretending you're a moron I'd be more than happy to discuss it with you further.
 
2011-07-01 10:59:20 AM

weave: Everyone should share a little pain until we get out of this mess, including those at the top. that caused it.


FTFM
 
2011-07-01 11:02:14 AM
This thread is lulz-worthy.

If you're not in finance, business, or sales, then you're (obviously) doing what you love and you're probably working for someone else. Workers don't get to complain about what the capitalists do because they've chosen not to be capitalists. Capitalists provide them with jobs so they can do what they love.

The stock market has provided the common man an opportunity to own a part of the business without actually having to start the business himself and take on all the risk (and reward). So he gets a fraction of the risk and a fraction of the reward, and yet somehow this is a bad thing.

I've often wondered if companies who offer employee stock options in their own company instead of the standard 401k mutual funds do better than companies that don't. If employees had more of a vested interest in where they work, would output, teamwork, and profitability increase? Especially if the company gave bonuses through dividends instead of paychecks or yearly bonuses?

Oh and I don't know if it's been said (but probably has), but companies aren't spending money because of all the uncertainty in the market place. If I owned a company (and I plan to start one very soon), I would be (and will be) hoarding cash like a motherfarker until I figured out what was going on and how soon I could expand.
 
2011-07-01 11:02:23 AM

King Something: Hell if I know, I was just trying to make a point - namely, that people with bachelor's degrees should be able to get better-paying jobs than "minimum wage waiter at a small restaurant" and would be able to get such a job if there was anyone hiring.


I won't dwell on it since we've had a thread covering the subject just about every day this week already, but survival in Republican Paradise is going to require you to be able to do something that some cave-dweller in the third world can't. Simply obtaining a degree from an accredited institution doesn't cut it. We're rapidly approaching a race to the bottom, where Republicans turn the US into a two-tiered country that is first-world for the top 5%, and third-world for everybody else. You can't compete with Vietnamese children when it comes to wages, hours, or benefits, so you better be able to do something they can't. And something useful.
 
2011-07-01 11:03:03 AM

zilla1126: People just don't have any critical thinking skills anymore - listen idiots:

Who the fark do you think owns the stock for these companies? Just rich people?

If you have been propagandized into thinking that, then you really need to grow up and start taking responsibility for thinking for yourself and not just drinking the kool-aid of whatever trips your emotional switches.

PEOPLE own corporations. The profits go to stockholders. And contrary to the PROPAGANDA you have been consuming, the vast majority of stock in these large companies are tied up in pension plans, 401k, etc.

When socialist lawmakers are successful in damaging one of these companies with confiscatory taxes or ridiculous regulations - it is the LITTLE people who get farked.

Socialists bent on changing this country into a european style socialist malaise-a-thon are just playing on your envy and spite to push through legislation that has nothing to do with whatever you have been whipped into a frenzy about.

When you fark with one of these large companies, you fark with the little people. The rich will stay rich.

So farking grow up already - your childishness is why we get assholes in power.

Stop being so easy to manipulate.


Word
 
2011-07-01 11:04:23 AM

gilgigamesh: chiefsfaninkc: Again only individuals pay taxes. Corporation are tax collection entities they do not pay them. When you purchase a product or service all the taxes a Corporation Pays are figured into the price of said good or service. Man I wish kids would learn basic economics in school instead of left wing government worship and corporation hate.

Mmm... I love it when irony comes with a heaping helping side order of smug ignorance. Delicious


Well, if he is talking about an LLC or S-Corp, he is correct. He is incorrect about tax costs being incorporated into the pricing. Only the most primitive of corporations or businesses do cost-plus pricing, so the cost of production will not necessarily set the overall price of the final product,
 
2011-07-01 11:05:11 AM

chiefsfaninkc: gilgigamesh: Since you'll be charging half again what I am charging just to cover your tax burden, I will drive you out of business a lot quicker than one year.



Now you're reduced to insults. Gilgamesh please return to this point and clarify it. I don't get it either.
 
2011-07-01 11:07:53 AM

LouDobbsAwaaaay: King Something: Hell if I know, I was just trying to make a point - namely, that people with bachelor's degrees should be able to get better-paying jobs than "minimum wage waiter at a small restaurant" and would be able to get such a job if there was anyone hiring.

I won't dwell on it since we've had a thread covering the subject just about every day this week already, but survival in Republican Paradise is going to require you to be able to do something that some cave-dweller in the third world can't. Simply obtaining a degree from an accredited institution doesn't cut it. We're rapidly approaching a race to the bottom, where Republicans turn the US into a two-tiered country that is first-world for the top 5%, and third-world for everybody else. You can't compete with Vietnamese children when it comes to wages, hours, or benefits, so you better be able to do something they can't. And something useful.


Man this is one of the dumbest comments I have read on Fark in sometime. The left wing (the man is keeping me down) derp is strong with this one.
 
2011-07-01 11:09:25 AM

MycroftHolmes: g Only the most primitive of corporations or businesses do cost-plus pricing, so the cost of production will not necessarily set the overall price of the final product,



This is referring to the concept of "what the market can bear"? If so, I just want to say from my soapbox here that I feel this concept of charging whatever one can get their hands on for something, is a concept based on greed and therefore immoral. Cost-plus pricing is how things got to the point they did and now with the "new" concepts everything is turning to shiat.
 
2011-07-01 11:09:45 AM

chiefsfaninkc: Man this is one of the dumbest comments I have read on Fark in sometime. The left wing (the man is keeping me down) derp is strong with this one.


If you disagree, I know I'm on the right track. You're a compass that always points south.
 
2011-07-01 11:10:14 AM

Andy Rips: This thread is lulz-worthy.

If you're not in finance, business, or sales, then you're (obviously) doing what you love and you're probably working for someone else. Workers don't get to complain about what the capitalists do because they've chosen not to be capitalists. Capitalists provide them with jobs so they can do what they love.

The stock market has provided the common man an opportunity to own a part of the business without actually having to start the business himself and take on all the risk (and reward). So he gets a fraction of the risk and a fraction of the reward, and yet somehow this is a bad thing.

I've often wondered if companies who offer employee stock options in their own company instead of the standard 401k mutual funds do better than companies that don't. If employees had more of a vested interest in where they work, would output, teamwork, and profitability increase? Especially if the company gave bonuses through dividends instead of paychecks or yearly bonuses?

Oh and I don't know if it's been said (but probably has), but companies aren't spending money because of all the uncertainty in the market place. If I owned a company (and I plan to start one very soon), I would be (and will be) hoarding cash like a motherfarker until I figured out what was going on and how soon I could expand.


You are lulz worthy, nobody is saying investing is bad or capitalism is bad. Companies invest when the demand is there, anyone who believes otherwise doesn't understand how business works.

Demand for goods and services drives investment, the lack of demand is directly relate to a failing middle class. Can you address the actual problem or does your ideology keep you from doing that?
 
2011-07-01 11:12:13 AM

CBass3: joonyer: CBass3: Yes, when the State prints money, it benefits those with first access to money and punishes the rest.

Similarly, when the Central State practices a sick form of corporate fascism, expect larger corporates to outperform.

Clearly, the Mother Jones answer is to institute a larger version of the malleable Central State. Since the left statists can't outlaw speech, expect those large corporates to enjoy even more advantages through the Central State.

The antidote to corporate fascism is to reduce dramatically the size, scope, and power of the Central State. I will not hold my breath waiting for such an outcome.

You picked the wrong week to stop sniffing glue, son.

You got me there, to the store!

Do you care to form a non-inhalant based rebuttal?


Rebuttal? Form a cohesive, rational argument for something, and I might.

What did you say up there, anyway? That in order to curtail corporate power, we need to reduce the size of the government? Yeah, that shiat makes a lot of sense.
 
2011-07-01 11:12:59 AM

MycroftHolmes: gilgigamesh: chiefsfaninkc: Again only individuals pay taxes. Corporation are tax collection entities they do not pay them. When you purchase a product or service all the taxes a Corporation Pays are figured into the price of said good or service. Man I wish kids would learn basic economics in school instead of left wing government worship and corporation hate.

Mmm... I love it when irony comes with a heaping helping side order of smug ignorance. Delicious

Well, if he is talking about an LLC or S-Corp, he is correct. He is incorrect about tax costs being incorporated into the pricing. Only the most primitive of corporations or businesses do cost-plus pricing, so the cost of production will not necessarily set the overall price of the final product,


No but all of the taxes paid for production will be figured into the price (plus other costs and profit margin). Again only individual pay taxes. Sooner or later all taxes paid can be traced back to an individual.
 
2011-07-01 11:13:07 AM
Splinshints:
You're ignoring all the people who don't own stocks at all. According to my link (5b on it, specifically) more than half of all households in the U.S. in 2007 owned no stocks at all, and that was before people were losing their asses in the recession.

Except that you really don't understand your own link, or how the writer created his "stats."

While it's true that not too many of the "bottom 90% don't own stocks" directly, most people own stock indirectly.

Go back and look at your own link. Every time you see "pension accounts" or "life insurance," replace that with "that money is in stocks somewhere down the line." Every teacher, firefighter, or person who has a real pension investment has money in the stock market, they just don't know it. The person who wrote that article you cite certainly knows that, but he sure exerted a lot of effort trying to hide it.

I'd find another source - anyone who thinks it's an "ultra-conservative" position to oppose the inheritance tax is pretty far to the left.

Let's see... yeah, a psychology/sociology professor at a University of California at Santa Cruz? Yep. Been writing books and articles about the evil "ownership class" since the 1960s? Yep. Major academic work is in "dream theory?" Yep.

When you cite "experts," you might want to look into their biases first, so you can find the hidden bits they don't want you to notice...
 
2011-07-01 11:14:21 AM

LouDobbsAwaaaay: chiefsfaninkc: Man this is one of the dumbest comments I have read on Fark in sometime. The left wing (the man is keeping me down) derp is strong with this one.

If you disagree, I know I'm on the right track. You're a compass that always points south.


Actually I point towards personal freedom no matter which direction it faces.
 
2011-07-01 11:14:25 AM
LouDobbsAwaaaay: If you disagree, I know I'm on the right track. You're a compass that always points south.

I'm still waiting to hear some of the titles on his bookshelf. Or it could be that the only thing sitting on it is an AM radio.
 
2011-07-01 11:14:39 AM

Rich Cream: weave: On a macro-economic picture, wealth is only created through increases in productivity. Everything else is just shuffling existing wealth around.

That is incorrect. Wealth is created. Are you telling me that 1,000 years ago multi-trillions of dollars worth of wealth existed?

The creation of wealth is the basis for Capitalism. Converting raw materials into more valuable product.


It's a basic economic principal. Please learn about what productivity really means.

For example, we used to be mostly an agrarian society with 50% of the workforce involved in agriculture. When farm automation was introduced, a lot of farm hands lost their jobs but I think you can agree that we are much better off because of it. Productivity increased. Same thing happened with computers and robotics. Productivity increased, and so did overall wealth.

It's also a simple fact that everyone in the world can't be rich.
 
2011-07-01 11:15:41 AM

Rich Cream: MycroftHolmes: g Only the most primitive of corporations or businesses do cost-plus pricing, so the cost of production will not necessarily set the overall price of the final product,


This is referring to the concept of "what the market can bear"? If so, I just want to say from my soapbox here that I feel this concept of charging whatever one can get their hands on for something, is a concept based on greed and therefore immoral. Cost-plus pricing is how things got to the point they did and now with the "new" concepts everything is turning to shiat.


This is just plain stupid. Under your thought, the cost of a new drug should be the cost of manufacturing the drug, plus a small markup. Within a few years, no more drug research. For all speculative industries, all innovative industries, the value they produce is much higher than the cost of unit production, so they able to charge more to justify the risk.

It isn't greed to want a return on an risky investment.

In most mature, commoditized markets, the pricing does typically get driven down to right around unit cost. But that is because of competitive pressures, not because of using cost plus pricing.
 
Displayed 50 of 280 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | » | Last | Show all



This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report